Official Search Discussion Thread

[JT]

This thread will be used by the team to better help improve and build up on the new search engine that was released to TGO on 10/05/07.

This thread should be used for:

• If you have any problems with the search engine (results not expected, etc.)
• If you have interesting ideas on how to improve the search (include search preferences in your account's profile, etc.)
• If you have any other constructive criticism that can be used to help improve and develop the search engine.

This thread should not be used for such comments as:

• Bring back the old search
• Search "sucks"
• Any comments that don't help improve the search engine, or simply criticize staff, policy, or any decisions. This isn't the thread, nor the place. We don't allow that - and haven't.

So, please, if you have some constructive criticism that can be used to better improve or develop the search engine, please post them with examples. If you have any issues with the search engine, please be sure to provide some information and examples to help the staff determine where the issue might be.

However, do not use this thread to attempt to debate or question the decisions made for moving to the new search engine. It's done, and we're informed the old search engine won't be coming back. In short, the old search engine was highly inefficient on large forums (such as TGO), was restrictive (search flood/timeout and longer minmium character limit), and did not have any "intelligence" that could perform any sort of results by rank.

We welcome feedback that will help build and improve on the new search engine.

Thanks.

[John in RI]

Search Term:

" Digital Camaro "
Sorted by relevance ( default ) returns 175047 results.
Then sorted by Post date, first thread shown:
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/v6...ro#post3569043 (help me crazy rattaling noise coming from under hood)

Digital Camaro is not found in this thread.



" Digital + Camaro "
Sorted by relevance ( default ) returns 164009 results.
Then sorted by Post date, first thread shown:
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/v6...ro#post3569043 (help me crazy rattaling noise coming from under hood)

The same thread is diplayed first, and still ----->
Digital Camaro is not found in this thread.


Of the 25 posts shown on the first page when sorted by date NONE of the results include the word search "Digital Camaro". Quotes were not used so I am not attempting to make locate a search term or have the word search in any particular order. I am expecting the Search engine to simply find Any/All posts that have the 2 required words " Digital" and "Camaro" in them - in any order - and nothing else.

When performing a search with 2 or more words in it ,......... shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results ?? This is not happening - even when those 2 words are separated by the "+" symbol.

________________________________________________________________


" Digital + Camaro "
Sorted by relevance ( default ) returns 164009 results.

The first 7 posts displayed contain "Digital" and "Camaro"

The eight thread displayed http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/ca...al#post3390015 (CAMARO) shows the following result when clicked:

Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

.

When I sort thes results by title - no title containing " Digital Camaro " is displayed,.... just an alphabetical listing of the results that were returned. So I decided to try a TITLE SEARCH.

Search = titleigital Camaro
None of the results shown on the first page contained both words..... only "digital" was returned


Search = titleigital + Camaro
The first 7 results contained both search words,............ the other 164002 results did not show the search words "Digital Camaro" in the title.


Since this was a specific Title search - shoulcn't ONLY those results that include the search words be returned ???

[JT]

Originally Posted by John in RI

When performing a search with 2 or more words in it ,......... shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results ?? This is not happening - even when those 2 words are separated by the "+" symbol.

John, currently, that is not how it is defaulted. The + sign needs to be used as a prefix before each word if you require all words to be found. If you don't use the + sign in front of multiple words, the search will show results for any words.
You would actually need to type:

camaro+digital

Notice there is no space. Apparently, the space affects the result.

I don't deny it is probably not efficient, nor is it what most people are probably use to. I, nor any of our members here, can change this other than requesting this to be addressed (in a professional manner - of course).

Originally Posted by John in RI

Search = titleigital + Camaro
Since this was a specific Title search - shoulcn't ONLY those results that include the search words be returned ???

This goes back to needing a + sign in front of each word and no spaces, which indicates that each word is required.

To answer the search by title, and require ALL words present, use something like this:

title:digital+camaro

[AmorgetRS]

JT - is there a way to "group" posts from a single thread? When I did the search for digital+camaro this thread appeared twice (#1 and #4).

[JT]

Originally Posted by AmorgetRS

JT - is there a way to "group" posts from a single thread? When I did the search for digital+camaro this thread appeared twice (#1 and #4).

It was my understanding, and what I have seen, that multiple posts within the same thread were grouped. In your example, I see what you're reporting. I'll see if it's a bug.

Thanks

[John in RI]

Spacing,......... I should have thought of that !

To one of my previous ?s;

When performing a search with 2 or more words in it ,......... shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results ??

that is not how it is defaulted.

I know that it not - but isn't it safe to assume if the user types more then 1 word than they are seeking output with both words - shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results


Brings me to another point.


Search = Digital Camaro
The first 7 results contained both search words IN THE TITLE,............ but not in order.

Search = titleigital+Camaro
Only one result was displayed; the words were in searched order.


Wouldn't you expect all results with the words "digital camaro" in the title to be returned,....... Regardless of the order - unless specified by quotes or some other indicator ??

[JT]

Originally Posted by John in RI

Spacing,......... I should have thought of that !

To one of my previous ?s;

When performing a search with 2 or more words in it ,......... shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results ??


I know that it not - but isn't it safe to assume if the user types more then 1 word than they are seeking output with both words - shouldn't the default criterea be that BOTH WORDS should be included in the results

I think it would cut down on the reports that the search is flooding users with results, and not knowing to use the + sign in front of each word because they weren't/aren't use to doing so. However, the development team must see it differently and have some reason. Because we are just one of a few other websites (some bigger than TGO) running this beta search engine, I'm wondering if other members from the other sites side with the developers - since it has remained this way.

Originally Posted by John in RI

Brings me to another point.

Search = Digital Camaro
The first 7 results contained both search words IN THE TITLE,............ but not in order.

Search = titleigital+Camaro
Only one result was displayed; the words were in searched order.


Wouldn't you expect all results with the words "digital camaro" in the title to be returned,....... Regardless of the order - unless specified by quotes or some other indicator ??

Can you clarify by not in order? When you do a search, the system sort order is defaulted to "relevancy", which is not date/time line. As you know, you can change the sort order. Relevancy factors many things in, in order to try and rank results. It takes things into consideration such as post length.

[AmorgetRS]

Originally Posted by JT

It was my understanding, and what I have seen, that multiple posts within the same thread were grouped. In your example, I see what you're reporting. I'll see if it's a bug.

Thanks

Thank you, JT. I had noticed the problem before but I was unable to replicated, then I thought I was going crazy as others did have them grouped very nicely.

[John in RI]

Search = Digital Camaro
The first 7 results contained both search words IN THE TITLE,............ but not in order.
Example Title:"camaro berlinetta digital gauge cluster"


Search = titleigital+Camaro
Only one result was displayed; the words were in searched order.
Example Title:"Digital CAMARO 82-89 Gauges"


Wouldn't you expect all results with the words "digital camaro" in the title to be returned,....... Regardless of the order - unless specified by quotes or some other indicator ??

[JT]

OK. By not in order, you weren't referring to sorting order, but actually referring to exact phrase.

I'll try to find out some information.

[John in RI]

Because the title search is only locating results as if a "search term" was entered rather than a "word search" it neglected to return 6 of the threads where both search words were included in the title.

[camaropunk]

I personally liked the original search before this one, the new one seems to complex for my liking. I see lot more people including myself just making a new thread out of something that coud of been searched, but wasnt done to the cnfusing new search.

[AmorgetRS]

Originally Posted by JT

This thread should not be used for such comments as:

• Bring back the old search
• Search "sucks"
• Any comments that don't help improve the search engine, or simply criticize staff, policy, or any decisions. This isn't the thread, nor the place. We don't allow that - and haven't.

Originally Posted by camaropunk

I personally liked the original search before this one, the new one seems to complex for my liking. I see lot more people including myself just making a new thread out of something that coud of been searched, but wasnt done to the cnfusing new search.

There ya go

[John in RI]

Has there been an update version installed over the beta search engine ???

[JT]

Originally Posted by John in RI

Has there been an update version installed over the beta search engine ???

It is still the same "beta" search engine, but yes, we did receive an updated version on Wednesday, I believe.

[John in RI]

What issue(s) was the patch release supposed to address ??

Previously repported search by Title search issue is still present. ( looking for search term rather than search words. )

Previously reported multiple post per thread is still present. ( Search "Berlinetta" then sort by date for an example of this. )

When viewing a member profile; "Find posts by X" shows the old style results, until user advances to the next page - when they are displayed in a new format ( without body of the post. )

[JT]

Originally Posted by John in RI

What issue(s) was the patch release supposed to address ??

Previously repported search by Title search issue is still present. ( looking for search term rather than search words. )

I had sent a detailed report about this issue (and other issues). So it was known and reported. I can only suspect that not all the issues have been addressed in this "new" release. As I understand it, we were a release or two behind when members were reporting on the search engine, so they may not have been addressed with his version. I don't know. I'll attempt to find out.

Originally Posted by John in RI

Previously reported multiple post per thread is still present. ( Search "Berlinetta" then sort by date for an example of this. )

I reviewed your past posts, and performed a search example. But I'm not finding this issue? What is the issue with this?

Originally Posted by John in RI

When viewing a member profile; "Find posts by X" shows the old style results, until user advances to the next page - when they are displayed in a new format ( without body of the post. )

I noted that bug myself. But that view is actually "posts" view, and not exactly an "old" style. People do use "posts" view over "threads" view, so I suspect that both options will be made available as the old search engines did. But the bug comes into play when this new updated version mixes the two. I've noted the issue on a bug report.

[John in RI]

I reviewed your past posts, and performed a search example. But I'm not finding this issue? What is the issue with this?

Reported by "AmorgetRS". Perform this simple search / sort to see it.

( Search "Berlinetta" then sort by date for an example of this. )

The every post related to the thread "Berlinetta 5-Speed / Titl Column ??? " appears.

[JT]

Originally Posted by John in RI

Reported by "AmorgetRS". Perform this simple search / sort to see it.

( Search "Berlinetta" then sort by date for an example of this. )

The every post related to the thread "Berlinetta 5-Speed / Titl Column ??? " appears.

OK. Yes, that bug was reported in detail as well by me, using AmorgetRS' information. I believe it was a bug with that version, but with this version, I'm not sure it's exactly a bug. Let me explain.

Go to a vBulletin based forum that uses the default vB based search engine. When you show results by "posts", you will see that each post will have a seperate entry, and if they belong to the same thread, they will not be grouped. That is how vBulletin had been previously doing it.

Here's a direct example for you. Using GTASourcepage's forum, and searching for gta and showing results as "posts", you will see that multiple posts belonging to the same thread aren't grouped, but are listed seperately. GTASourcepage is running a stock vB based search engine - to my knowledge. See attachment.

This is why I believe what AmorgetRS reported, at the time, was a bug, but may not exactly be a bug now.

There previously was two view modes.

"Posts" view: When you perform a search and display the results by post, you will see a brief snip of the post.

"Threads" view: When you perform a search and display the results by thread, you will see only the thread title information. No brief snip of the post is shown.

"Intelligent" view: To my understanding, this was a mix of the two modes above, and it combined multiple results (posts) under the same thread.

It was my understanding that our previous "posts" mode, which was default, was functioning like an "Intelligent" view.

This is my best understanding and I could be wrong. I'm still waiting for some information.

[AmorgetRS]

I see what you are talking about JT, however it seems like they more of removed a grouping that wasn't working completely rather then fixing the bug. I know I've done that in code before... so can we change it from a "bug" to a "feature request"?

BTW, not a fan of the new new layout, I think the previous version "looked" better.

[JT]

Originally Posted by AmorgetRS

I see what you are talking about JT, however it seems like they more of removed a grouping that wasn't working completely rather then fixing the bug. I know I've done that in code before... so can we change it from a "bug" to a "feature request"?

BTW, not a fan of the new new layout, I think the previous version "looked" better.

I'll inquire about the "Intelligent" mode, which is what I believe it use to be. I'm not sure of exact details at this time, but I never noticed (nor heard from other members - besides your example) of it not working correctly for the most part.

Thanks.

[BigBabyLou]

Hi,

I tried searching for posts about shaving an antenna in the Body forum.
To avoid having to search twice, once for SHAVED and once for SHAVING, I simply used SHAV. I expected results with SHAVED and SHAVING. But I got zero, zilch, zip, nada.

Searching for SHAVED or SHAVING separately works fine.

Do we not allow partial word matches? Can we allow them? I use partials a lot to get better search results and it would help.

Thanks
Lou